Teenagers and Church Music

[Jimsdun]

Geez, I wish I had a computer and these forums when I was a teen. I wouldn’t have felt like such a Catholic alien. As a teen in the '90s, it seemed like I was the only one, with the exception of a few others, who thought there was something amiss with the sacred music. It just seemed so lacking in substance for me as a child and a teen - And believe me, I did try to see what others saw in it. Some of it was nice and pretty for a kid, but as I got older it wasn’t enough. And it always had me wondering why whenever the Church was represented in documentaries, movies, etc., they always used such glorious sacred music or very contemplative and trance-like chant, and then when I’d attend mass in my area it would be nothing like that.

(Later, I discovered from my fellow sibs and contemporaries, most of them couldn’t stand the music either. So, I guess I wasn’t as alone as I thought.)

For you teens now, just know that even though it may seem like you’re alone, there are other young people out there who share your beliefs in sacred music. You could potentially be the next generation to help bring this back to our younger Catholics. Just don’t forget about how you felt as a teen. (Keeping a diary is a great reminder. I love going back and reading all of mine once in a blue moon.)

As I said before, many middle aged parents of teens are clueless. They just ASSUME that teenagers would want the same music format in mass that they listen to in their secular life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trying to make the mass more entertaining is not going to benefit teens in the long run.

adoremus.org/6-72K.Jon.html

 

[Jimsdun]

As I said before, many middle aged parents of teens are clueless. They just ASSUME that teenagers would want the same music format in mass that they listen to in their secular life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trying to make the mass more entertaining is not going to benefit teens in the long run.

adoremus.org/6-72K.Jon.html

Especially read the last part “We Need to Know the Other”

 

[Sarabande]

As I said before, many middle aged parents of teens are clueless. They just ASSUME that teenagers would want the same music format in mass that they listen to in their secular life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trying to make the mass more entertaining is not going to benefit teens in the long run.

adoremus.org/6-72K.Jon.html

Totally agree. As my fellow music colleagues/friends who work in church music would attest, it is sometimes an uphill battle when dealing with the middle-age boomers who insist that this music is what the kids and teens want. I have a cousin who is by no means a classical music person - rock all the way. She’s a very “edgy” 19-year-old. Her mother thought by taking her to the youth mass would get her more “involved” at mass and liking mass more. It did the total opposite. She hated what she called “pseudo-rock shallow” music. Now she’s in her first year of college and kind of just floating out there. I’m not going to blame it on the music at that mass and I’m not going to blame her parents either because they are church-going faith-filled people. But I don’t think it helped. I just pray she gets back her faith.

 

[Sarabande]

Especially read the last part “We Need to Know the Other”

That’s exactly what I tried to do when I taught music for two years at a Catholic school shortly after graduation. It was a tough road, but I believe I made some in-roads - even starting a sacred music club called the “Palestrina Scholars” which had a nice group of kids who enjoyed it. All of this was to be unraveled once I left to get married and pursue a career in music. And now the school is closed.

In my experience, the children and young teens did yearn for something more than what was expected and given to them. AND when it is presented in the right way without being too “heady” or “above”, it was welcomed. When they see that it isn’t over their heads and that the person presenting and teaching them loves it, they can’t help but love it or at least appreciate it for what it is. But that did not go over well with people in power. They didn’t want to see it happen and couldn’t believe that someone my age would even consider doing such an undertaking.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Hi and welcome back everyone!

I saw this article just before the forums went down and I’ve been waiting to post it here. I want to see what you all think of it.

Teenagers and Church Music: What Do They Really Think?

“What do teens think is the appropriate kind of music for a worship setting? An interview with a professor of music education who researched this question provides some interesting answers.”

I’m 13 and LOVE tradditional music at mass, but outside I like the modern worship music.

 

[TheApologist]

Personally, being a youth, I love to hear gregorian chant. It is beeeeee-eau-tiful! It seems that the only time I hear it, though, is in the movies or on the TV when Catholicism is being described or when the Pope is in the US .

My parish’s music has a spectrum. It goes from decades old contemporary Mass music to a few years old contemporary Mass music. Or rather, the decades old substitute for chant to the few year-old substitute. So the most reverent Mass is the only with the decades old substitute. The best Masses, though, are when the music is more like chant…slow and solemn. I really liked the feast of Corpus Christi when we sang the Sequence from St. Thomas.

The only thing I don’t like with full-fledged chant is that most people don’t know Latin. It’s good to know what you’re listening to/singing especially if it’s liturgy. Of course even the full-fledged Latin Chant serves a purpose- it brings beauty to the Mass.
And if every Catholic Church in the world had it, then it is an amazingly unitive factor and an amazingly unique factor. That’s what I love about Latin and chant and such. When Anglican liturgy is more Catholic than the Catholic liturgy, what is that saying?

I think the best thing may be Chant in English or alternating Latin/English chants so that the congregation can get the hang of the meaning of each phrase. For example, a good thing our music director does during Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament- Tantum Ergo is sung (albeit not to the traditional music rhythm, but still reverent) first in Latin then in English.

If everyone knew Latin, then it’d be great to go to church and always hear that beautiful chant which would actually make sense in language.

 

[Margarite]

I agree that

 

[dconklin]

Why stop with a country music mass? Why not a hip-hop mass? or a ska/reggae mass? Or a heavy metal mass, or a grunge mass? How about a Motown mass? Let’s have masses for all musical tastes. .

If you can answer that question, perhaps you can help me with this one: Why weren’t there jazz and big band masses in the 1930s and 1940s? And why weren’t there Vaudeville masses in the 1920s?

Considering you have to get a priest to say the mass, your options are limited a little. Who is the rapping priest? I have a DVD he did explaining the mass. Is he on EWTN?

 

[Cat]

Why stop with a country music mass? Why not a hip-hop mass? or a ska/reggae mass? Or a heavy metal mass, or a grunge mass? How about a Motown mass? ** Let’s have masses for all musical tastes. .**

If you can answer that question, perhaps you can help me with this one: Why weren’t there jazz and big band masses in the 1930s and 1940s? And why weren’t there Vaudeville masses in the 1920s?

boldface mine: That’s exactly what the Vatican II documents say! See the chapter entitled "Sacred Liturgy, 119–“In some places, in mission lands especially, there are people who have their own musical tradition, and this plays an important part in their religious and social life. For this reason their music should be held in due esteem and should be given a sutiable role, not only in forming their religious sense but also in adapting worship to their native genius.”

I guess the question is–do the various genres of music in the U.S. constitute “mission lands”? I would say yes. Many people who like country music are country all the way, and they are essentially a separate mission field than other people.

Same for African American music. Of course it is a generalization to say that African Americans do not like traditional music. But the fact is that many African Americans love their own music and listen to it a great deal; why not try to write music that will attract them to the Catholic Church? That’s what Vat II is saying–use music as a tool in missionary efforts.

Same for teenagers. Although we are hearing from some teens on this board who prefer traditional music, I would say based on my experiences working with teenagers OUTSIDE of the Catholic Church that these fine teens on CAF are the exception rather than the rule, and it would be foolish to assume that all teens are just like them.

For many years, evangelicals have considered “youth” to be a “mission field” and have conducted outreach, including musical outreach, especially designed to attract and retain teenagers. This approach is working well, as evidenced by the extremely large youth groups and organizations in many evangelical churches (including hundreds of Catholic youth).

Again, I can only say, read the chapter in Vatican II called “Sacred Liturgy.” I would not say these things on my own, as I am a new Catholic. But I believe that I have support from the Documents of the Vatican II Council for my opinion. I realize that some of you place no stock in Vat II, but as far as I know, it is a legitimate council of the Catholic Church.

 

[TheApologist]

boldface mine: That’s exactly what the Vatican II documents say! See the chapter entitled "Sacred Liturgy, 119–“In some places, in mission lands especially, there are people who have their own musical tradition, and this plays an important part in their religious and social life. For this reason their music should be held in due esteem and should be given a sutiable role, not only in forming their religious sense but also in adapting worship to their native genius.”

I guess the question is–do the various genres of music in the U.S. constitute “mission lands”? I would say yes.

When’s the last time you heard of 1st World Countries being called “mission lands” or being described as demanding “missionaries”? —Only when the country is specifically non-Christian.
You never hear Church officials calling the US “mission lands” or saying it needs “missionaries.” The missionaries are all going to Africa, Asia, South America, and perhaps other non-US lands in other continents.
What the Church means when it says “mission lands” means places like Africa with local ancient music traditions which greatly resound within the African person.

Plus the allowance of the ancient musical tradition of mission lands is so that the local people will be more easily Christianized- less alienated by non-familiar music. This is so they can accept Christianity in the first place. Plus if the music in mission lands were opposed to the service liturgical music is supposed to give (for example, if the local tradition would be heavy metal, head banging), then the music would be disqualified for acceptance in the Mass.

Same for teenagers. Although we are hearing from some teens on this board who prefer traditional music, I would say based on my experiences working with teenagers OUTSIDE of the Catholic Church that these fine teens on CAF are the exception rather than the rule, and it would be foolish to assume that all teens are just like them.

For many years, evangelicals have considered “youth” to be a “mission field” and have conducted outreach, including musical outreach, especially designed to attract and retain teenagers. This approach is working well, as evidenced by the extremely large youth groups and organizations in many evangelical churches (including hundreds of Catholic youth).

First off, teenagers OUTSIDE the Catholic Church cannot be equated to teenagers INSIDE the Catholic Church. And here’s why…you say Evangelicals have reached out to teenagers through music, I say the Evangelical contemporary worship service does NOT equal the Mass. The music at Evangelical services serves a purpose completely different from the music at Catholic Mass.

Catholic teens certainly can be reached out to with contemporary music- in Catholic Praise and Worship (that’s what Evangelical services are musically- P&W)- not in the Mass (not to say teens can’t be reached out to in the Mass with liturgical music).

Also, if teens would be attracted to the Mass more so by nonliturgical music- that is, music that does not serve its purpose in the Mass- then should the music be used? Of course not.

 

[melissa09]

boldface mine: That’s exactly what the Vatican II documents say! See the chapter entitled "Sacred Liturgy, 119–“In some places, in mission lands especially, there are people who have their own musical tradition, and this plays an important part in their religious and social life. For this reason their music should be held in due esteem and should be given a sutiable role, not only in forming their religious sense but also in adapting worship to their native genius.”

I guess the question is–do the various genres of music in the U.S. constitute “mission lands”? I would say yes. Many people who like country music are country all the way, and they are essentially a separate mission field than other people.

Same for African American music. Of course it is a generalization to say that African Americans do not like traditional music. But the fact is that many African Americans love their own music and listen to it a great deal; why not try to write music that will attract them to the Catholic Church? That’s what Vat II is saying–use music as a tool in missionary efforts.

Same for teenagers. Although we are hearing from some teens on this board who prefer traditional music, I would say based on my experiences working with teenagers OUTSIDE of the Catholic Church that these fine teens on CAF are the exception rather than the rule, and it would be foolish to assume that all teens are just like them.

For many years, evangelicals have considered “youth” to be a “mission field” and have conducted outreach, including musical outreach, especially designed to attract and retain teenagers. This approach is working well, as evidenced by the extremely large youth groups and organizations in many evangelical churches (including hundreds of Catholic youth).

Again, I can only say, read the chapter in Vatican II called “Sacred Liturgy.” I would not say these things on my own, as I am a new Catholic. But I believe that I have support from the Documents of the Vatican II Council for my opinion. I realize that some of you place no stock in Vat II, but as far as I know, it is a legitimate council of the Catholic Church.

I really think Jimsdun was being completely sarcastic when he mentioned the Country Music Mass!! ( im hoping!!) and there are other ways to reach out to youth besides changing the music in Mass. And even if you think we few teens are an exception, please look at the study that was posted as a link on here and according to that we aren’t an exception. I think if teens learned the importance of Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy they would like it, but many of them just go with the flow of things and don’t understand the Church and the liturgy in order to appreciate it. I’m starting to wonder if many teens and even adults for that matter are forgetting the importance of the Mass itself too!

 

[agapewolf]

When’s the last time you heard of 1st World Countries being called “mission lands” or being described as demanding “missionaries”? —Only when the country is specifically non-Christian.
You never hear Church officials calling the US “mission lands” or saying it needs “missionaries.” The missionaries are all going to Africa, Asia, South America, and perhaps other non-US lands in other continents.

.

Completely 100% incorrect. The US is indeed a missionary country. That is why Nigerian priests are sent here, as missionaries…no kidding.

One does not need to be materially poor to be a mission country. We are indeed extremely spiritually poor in this country, and we are considered a missionary country. Many Bishops in Africa officially call us this.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

I really think Jimsdun was being completely sarcastic when he mentioned the Country Music Mass!! ( im hoping!!) and there are other ways to reach out to youth besides changing the music in Mass. And even if you think we few teens are an exception, please look at the study that was posted as a link on here and according to that we aren’t an exception. I think if teens learned the importance of Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy they would like it, but many of them just go with the flow of things and don’t understand the Church and the liturgy in order to appreciate it. I’m starting to wonder if many teens and even adults for that matter are forgetting the importance of the Mass itself too!

The reason is that they are not taught properly. Cathechism class is not what it used to be! They learned about what everything in the mass symbolized and about different saints and all kinds of other stuff! Their classes also lasted a good two to three hours rather than one!

 

[TheApologist]

Completely 100% incorrect. The US is indeed a missionary country. That is why Nigerian priests are sent here, as missionaries…no kidding.

One does not need to be materially poor to be a mission country. We are indeed extremely spiritually poor in this country, and we are considered a missionary country. Many Bishops in Africa officially call us this.

In that case, excuse me. The US is indeed a missionary country for a multitude of priests abroad.

But, I still think the document mentioned before means more so lands like Africa where native drums and such are used. The United States is Christianized and doesn’t exactly need “native” music to make the Mass more familiar. Any American-izing of Mass music would probably just make the Mass more Protestant than Catholic in music.

 

[Jimsdun]

I really think Jimsdun was being completely sarcastic when he mentioned the Country Music Mass!! ( im hoping!!) and there are other ways to reach out to youth besides changing the music in Mass. And even if you think we few teens are an exception, please look at the study that was posted as a link on here and according to that we aren’t an exception. I think if teens learned the importance of Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy they would like it, but many of them just go with the flow of things and don’t understand the Church and the liturgy in order to appreciate it. I’m starting to wonder if many teens and even adults for that matter are forgetting the importance of the Mass itself too!

Well of course I was being sarcastic. In the same post where I mentioned a country music mass, I also mentioned that there was no such thing as a Vaudeville mass in the 1920s. Why is that?

Probably because in the 1920s, people recognized that the mass was not entertainment. If people wanted to be entertained, they go to a Vaudeville show. And they attend mass for an entirely different reason.

In more recent times, some thought that making the mass more entertaining might attract or retain young persons that had a tendency to drop out of mass attendance, in is an age of self-indulgence and instant gratification. Don’t know if that produced the results they had hoped for, but one of the unfortunate side effects was that it has dumbed down the liturgy.

Of course what Cat was talking about teenagers being a mission field is also correct. There are a lot of those Evangelical superchurches that think the same way, and they snare a lot of teenagers and young adults with their McChurch services. Those churches are full of ex-Catholics who might say something like "I was raised Catholic, but I always got bored at mass. Then I started coming to Hallelujah House and I got born again."

Waht naturally followed was parishes designed to compete with “Hallelujah House” The architects thought that they had to LOOK like the megachurches that they were competing against.

That explains why many of the newer parishes look like meeting halls, theater seats instead of pews, no kneelers, no statues, no stained glass windows, tabernacle in some remote corner (or banished to a separate chapel) and rock bands replacing the sacred music. That might increase the QUANTITY, but at the expense of QUALITY, and it might bring some of the young persons back, but at what cost?

If the young had been properly instructed they would never have left in the first place.

 

[Cat]

This is what I have heard and believe: the United States can be described as “neo-pagan.”

Although the nation was founded on Christian “principles,” a large number of people in the U.S. do not believe in Christianity (any form of it).

Therefore many Protestant denominations consider the U.S. a “mission field.” And just as Nigeria is sending its men to the U.S. to be priests, many Protestant denominations are sending people from outside the U.S. to the U.S. as missionaries to the U.S.

And many Protestant denominations are sending missionaries to various subgroups in the U.S. E.g., there are missionaries to the entertainment industry. This field is particularly important, as this industry controls the culture of the U.S.

Although your corner of the U.S. may still be very Christian/Catholic, there are many parts of the U.S. that are as dark and godless as some of the nations that we traditionally consider pagan. We need to open up our eyes and see this field of unbelievers in our own country waiting for someone to sow the Gospel among them. If rock music can be a vehicle that will bring people to Jesus, then we must use it to help those people. Our own personal preferences must be set aside.

As far as I can see from the Vat II documents, there is nothing forbidding ANY style of music in the Holy Mass. It seems that Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom, is leaving it up to the local bishops, who know their population and are sensitive to what will be most effective in communicating to the people in their care.

I truly believe that the U.S. will eventually return to Jesus and embrace Christianity, and I believe that many of those among us who currently reject Chrisianity will be converted. It is a great comfort that the Blessed Mother is praying for us, and I believe her prayers are particularly efficacious. I believe that other saints from the U.S. are also praying hard for the U.S.

 

[japhy]

As far as I can see from the Vat II documents, there is nothing forbidding ANY style of music in the Holy Mass. It seems that Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom, is leaving it up to the local bishops…

I disagree with you on this. First, here’s where “music” shows up (in an appropriate context) in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (keeping in mind that this is an English translation of a Latin document):

“Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of … sacred music … but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.” (n. 39)

“The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. … Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship. Accordingly, the sacred Council, keeping to the norms and precepts of ecclesiastical tradition and discipline, and having regard to the purpose of sacred music, which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful, decrees as follows.” (n. 112)

“The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care.” (n. 114)

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited {proprium - “proper”} to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.” (n. 116)

“In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.” (n. 119)

“In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem … **ut other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.” (n. 120)

“Let [composers] produce compositions which have the qualities proper to genuine sacred music.” (n. 121)

I will continue in another post with my commentary on these quotes, but let me make a general comment: this document continually says that local Ordinaries (i.e. Bishops, in our case) have competency in matters pertaining to allowing certain instruments and styles of music into the liturgy, but always being subject to fundamental norms that must be respected. There are universal qualities which sacred music must possess, and which profane music inherently lacks. I would argue that there are genres or styles of music that simply lack the qualities of sacred music.**

 

[happyseppy]

Personally, being a youth, I love to hear gregorian chant. It is beeeeee-eau-tiful! It seems that the only time I hear it, though, is in the movies or on the TV when Catholicism is being described or when the Pope is in the US .
.

Unfortunately, this last visit of the Pope served him up everything from soup to nuts!

I’ll not elaborate too much, so much has been said already that has covered this question well.

Being a church musician, I have to say that wherever you are, parish-wise, you pretty much have to fit within a certain framework that is already in place. My husband and I try to take our assignment and put as much reverence and spirituality into it as we can. There are some pieces of music that make this practically impossible, I refer to those ( as my DH will attest) as “campfire songs.”

Both of us, being classically trained have a love for music in that vein, so we slip it in whenever possible…(ie: Ave Maria, Panis Angelicus, etc…) But as far as being products of our time music-wise, we are not. (mid to late forties) Our teenagers don’t care for the campfire songs much either…

Peace,
Kelly

 

[benedictgal]

Japhy makes some very solid points. Furthermore, Pope John Paul II wrote (in his Chirograph on Sacred Music):

I have also stressed the need to “purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated”[10], to guarantee dignity and excellence to liturgical compositions.

In this perspective, in the light of the Magisterium of St Pius X and my other Predecessors and taking into account in particular the pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council, I would like to re-propose several fundamental principles for this important sector of the life of the Church, with the intention of ensuring that liturgical music corresponds ever more closely to its specific function.

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

Thus, liturgical music is not supposed to be some free form exercise in creativity. It is supposed to refect the sublime, solemn and divine mysteries that unfold before us at every Mass.

Furthermore, the poster who claimed that the documents of Vatican II do not speak to Sacred Music may not have read Musicam Sacram, which notes:

1. It should be borne in mind that the true solemnity of liturgical worship depends less on a more ornate form of singing and a more magnificent ceremonial than on its worthy and religious celebration, which takes into account the integrity of the liturgical celebration itself, and the performance of each of its parts according to their own particular nature. To have a more ornate form of singing and a more magnificent ceremonial is at times desirable when there are the resources available to carry them out properly; on the other hand it would be contrary to the true solemnity of the Liturgy if this were to lead to a part of the action being omitted, changed, or improperly performed.

Furthermore, as Pope John Paul II noted in his Chirograph, the writings of Pope St. Pius X have never been abrogated regarding Sacred Music. John Paul further notes that:

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, "not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold", my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that "if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious"[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

Here, John Paul makes references to both Pope St. Pius X and the late Pope Paul VI.

Therefore, whether one likes it or not, the Church does have its standards as far as music is concerned because, as Pope Benedict XVI so aptly states:

1. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128).

What passes for sacred music at these “teen” Masses fails to take into account that what we are partaking in is the Holy Sacrifice, not some Protestant mega-Church celebration.

 

[Cat]

Japhy makes some very solid points. Furthermore, Pope John Paul II wrote (in his Chirograph on Sacred Music):

Thus, liturgical music is not supposed to be some free form exercise in creativity. It is supposed to refect the sublime, solemn and divine mysteries that unfold before us at every Mass.

Furthermore, the poster who claimed that the documents of Vatican II do not speak to Sacred Music may not have read Musicam Sacram, which notes:

Furthermore, as Pope John Paul II noted in his Chirograph, the writings of Pope St. Pius X have never been abrogated regarding Sacred Music. John Paul further notes that:

Here, John Paul makes references to both Pope St. Pius X and the late Pope Paul VI.

Therefore, whether one likes it or not, the Church does have its standards as far as music is concerned because, as Pope Benedict XVI so aptly states:

**
What passes for sacred music at these “teen” Masses fails to take into account that what we are partaking in is the Holy Sacrifice, not some Protestant mega-Church celebration./**QUOTE]

Boldface mine–funny, I don’t get this impression at all from the music at our parish’s Life Teen Mass. In fact, it is this music more than any other that causes me to recall with great remorse and grief the terrible death of our Lord on the cross, and I am moved to tears.

It’s all personal preference! There is no such thing as innately “holy” music. Case in Point: at work (microbiology lab), we sing a ditty set to the tune of Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus, surely some of the best music ever written–but we substitute the word “Gonorrhea” for “Hallelujah.” Bang–there goes the “sacredness” of the melody!

Also, how many Protestant mega-Church celebrations have you attended? There is a huge difference between the music at Life Teen Masses, and the music at a Protestant megachurch.

Finally, Life Teen Masses and the music settings and hymns done at these Masses have the approval of the local Bishops. Those who say that the music is somehow lacking at LifeTeen are implying that the Bishop is missing something. I frankly don’t have the gall to make such a claim against an apostle of the Lord Jesus.